The Federal Trade Commission has hired a prominent outside litigator who …

The Federal Trade Commission announced on Thursday that it had hired an outside litigator in the antitrust case likely to be brought against Google. The Feds have been looking into whether Google has been abusing its overwhelming market share in search to quash competition and to artificially inflate online advertising prices.

The new litigator is Beth A. Wilkinson, a Washington, DC-based attorney who served as special attorney to the United States Attorney General in the case of US v. McVeigh and Nichols, the two men accused and convicted in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. She delivered the closing arguments in the case, which resulted in a death sentence for McVeigh, and earned her a second award for service from the Department of Justice.

The New York Times notes that the FTC has only hired outside litigators twice in the last decade, suggesting that there will likely be a case brought against Google.

"It’s a watershed moment when you hire someone like this," said David Wales, a former Federal Trade Commission official now in private practice with Jones Day, in an interview with the Times. "This shows Google that if it doesn’t give you the remedy you want, you’re going to litigate."

However, FTC officials have been quick to stress that no decision has been made with respect to potential charges against Google.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal notes that in Google's most recently quarterly regulatory filing, that the company is apparently now also under investigation for "certain business practices" in Argentina and South Korea.

Hmmm.... Okay, she seems to be a skilled attorney, but looking at her page linked above makes me wonder if she's the right worker for the job. Most of her courtroom experience seems to be in criminal law, and --- as Ken White from Popehat will tell you --- it's a whole different animal from civil law.

Google donated a bunch of money to Obama's campaign and made it quite clear they support his administration. In turn, Obama has done nothing but appoint people who are clearly anti-Google. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the Obama administration has received more money from the RIAA and MPAA than Google, and they see Google as the devil.

When Microsoft wanted to buy Yahoo (which would clearly be bad for competition) the FTC pre-emptively said they'd sign off on it, but when Google wanted to keep Yahoo afloat by giving them cash, the FTC threatened to break up Google over the move.

Whether or not you like Google as a company, you have to question why the FTC has had it out for Google and what agenda this ultimately serves.

Hmmm.... Okay, she seems to be a skilled attorney, but looking at her page linked above makes me wonder if she's the right worker for the job. Most of her courtroom experience seems to be in criminal law, and --- as Ken White from Popehat will tell you --- it's a whole different animal from civil law.

Anti-trust violations are criminal. It's just one of those silly situations where the charges have to be brought against a company so everything ends up looking civil anyway.

Whether or not you like Google as a company, you have to question why the FTC has had it out for Google and what agenda this ultimately serves.

They don't necessarily have it 'out' for the company: They have what a monopoly (as defined by the law) in search, so they warrant review, constantly, to make sure that isn't being abused.

Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Windows had 95% of the desktop OS market at one point. Google's massive monopoly is 65%. Does a 65% market share truly equate to an unfair advantage?

So far the bulk of their claims have been that Google doesn't have a right to promote their own services where as their competitors can do the same. Google has a track record of supporting choice and open formats. They don't try to lock people into specific products or platforms. Their behavior has been decidedly opposite of similar tech companies who do exhibit anti-competitive behavior. So the FTC should go after Google over trumped up charges?

Google donated a bunch of money to Obama's campaign ......... In turn, Obama has done nothing .... [and] .... clearly anti-Google. I suspect .... the fact that the Obama administration has received more money from ... RIAA and MPAA.....and they see Google as the devil.

.........

Whether or not you like Google as a company, you have to question why the FTC has had it out for Google and what agenda this ultimately serves.

Ok ok, the above isn't really quoted [word for word], but still, it fits... Obama wants Government power to extend beyond the reach of the oval office but into your homes, Google being the largest company that initiated a protest of SOPA [and other bills] thus the government, by extension Obama, is going to us the laws he help establish along with some from the 20th centure (imaging that) to us against Google, ultimately slowing or damaging its reputation.

The only thing to fear [here] is a government that believes more in the ability to gather power over its people then the people itself.

Hmmm.... Okay, she seems to be a skilled attorney, but looking at her page linked above makes me wonder if she's the right worker for the job. Most of her courtroom experience seems to be in criminal law, and --- as Ken White from Popehat will tell you --- it's a whole different animal from civil law.

Anti-Trust is criminal in scope, it just ends up civil in practice most times. Besides, the only difference between a criminal case and a civil case basically (aside from courtroom procedure and scope in outcome) is that the "rules of evidence" are different - but its still baiscally the same, someone did something and someone tries to prove they did it.

Nothing to worry about... take it to court. Unless the EU is also filing charges, then settle with the EU and still take it to court in the USA

But... if Google broke the law, then I hope the DOJ can field a solid case.

All the previous claims have been that Google's search page can link to Google's other services. Because they have a massive (65%) monopoly on search, it is an unfair advantage to link to their services.

And you can't determine if Google is unfairly favoring their products without revealing their PageRank algorithms, which could cripple their core business.

I don't think their is any evidence of illegal behavior that has been reported on, but the FTC is going after them regardless. Again, why?

Google donated a bunch of money to Obama's campaign and made it quite clear they support his administration. In turn, Obama has done nothing but appoint people who are clearly anti-Google. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the Obama administration has received more money from the RIAA and MPAA than Google, and they see Google as the devil.

Are you saying the administration isn't corrupt enough, or is too corrupt? Perhaps they're doing what they think is right despite the campaign contributions.

They don't necessarily have it 'out' for the company: They have what a monopoly (as defined by the law) in search, so they warrant review, constantly, to make sure that isn't being abused.

Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Windows had 95% of the desktop OS market at one point. Google's massive monopoly is 65%. Does a 65% market share truly equate to an unfair advantage?

So far the bulk of their claims have been that Google doesn't have a right to promote their own services where as their competitors can do the same. Google has a track record of supporting choice and open formats. They don't try to lock people into specific products or platforms. Their behavior has been decidedly opposite of similar tech companies who do exhibit anti-competitive behavior. So the FTC should go after Google over trumped up charges?

To your point, Microsoft got sued for anti-trust. A monopoly isn't illegal, leveraging it is. You can promote your own services, but you (generally) can't bundle things with a monopolistic product.

All the previous claims have been that Google's search page can link to Google's other services. Because they have a massive (65%) monopoly on search, it is an unfair advantage to link to their services.

Note the ~65% are google's market share in the US, which I agree is rather low for a monopoly. In Europe their market share is between 80 and 90%.

All the previous claims have been that Google's search page can link to Google's other services. Because they have a massive (65%) monopoly on search, it is an unfair advantage to link to their services.

Note the ~65% are google's market share in the US, which I agree is rather low for a monopoly. In Europe their market share is between 80 and 90%.

Interesting difference, though I'm not sure why.

Heh... pretty funny what percentages some people think are "massive" and what constitutes a monopoly

Posters here need to realize that the FTC is not investigating whether Google is a monopoly. they are investigating whether Google abused its monopoly position.

This.

There is no US law against a "naturally formed monopoly" such as Google, rather there are laws against abuse of a monopoly position.

And, for those who keep on asking, the abuse that the FTC is looking into was cited in the article:

the article wrote:

The Feds have been looking into whether Google has been abusing its overwhelming market share in search to quash competition and to artificially inflate online advertising prices.

Oddly enough, those laws (and many others) have been routinely flaunted over the last few years by any number of multinational, US-based corporations with plenty of "speech" to throw around, to the very obvious detriment of most, if not all, Americans and their free markets, and the FTC has thus fair failed to hire special prosecutors to investigate any of them.

Stories like these surely do not increase my fear of Google (Heh! That's a pretty amusing thought!...) But otoh, stories like these do much to increase my fear of a government run amok with cronyism, vindictiveness, malice and highly prejudicial conduct. IE, corruption.

This case with Google is looking more and more like the government's persecution of Microsoft every day. Lamar Smith called them "crooks" because Google came out against an RIAA crony position having to do with the Internet--and shortly thereafter--the time-frame here is astounding--the government's pulling hardball criminal prosecutors out of the woodwork to set about chopping up Google into so much firewood. "Vindictive" only begins to tell the tale here.

I've said it may times before and it's just as true today as it ever was--the government is the one to watch with respect to abuses of power--*not* companies like Google. Google can't incarcerate you, legally shoot you, seize all of your goods and property and wealth, and generally make your life a living hell for months if not years on end. Only the government has the power to persecute like that--and it's happened again and again and again. The annals are full of heartbreaking stories that illustrate beautifully just how heartless our own government can be at times with its own taxpaying citizens. Google, like Microsoft before it, became incredibly successful through its own hard work and efforts without bowing and scraping, and without greasing the appropriate palms of the powers that be in Washington--and now the day of judgment for those sins is fast approaching.

People need to stop being so naive about these things. The abuses of power are real. Stories of people antagonizing politicians with remarks or intransigence or the withholding of campaign monies who wake up the next day to find the IRS has singled them out for a particularly nasty audit are *true* stories. They are not myth. They are not sensationalist. The government is not angelic and full of holy, righteous, sanctimonious beings tirelessly fighting for the cause of the "right" and the "just"--as amazingly enough, some people in these threads seem bound and determined to believe. My advice to them is to quit reading comic books and grow up.

Ever notice how every single time the government starts an investigation into the activities of Intel--and I mean every single time--the whole thing is over with almost before it got started? Intel will grease the skids in rapid fashion and do whatever it takes to deflect this kind of attention. Microsoft and Google were/are simply too arrogant for certain people in the government to stomach--they don't believe they did anything wrong and so they were/are going to stand on principle and fight it out as opposed to caving in as quickly as possible.

Frankly, I think that Intel's historic ways of deflecting government investigations is the sane, correct, and the only logical path to take, really. You can rarely win against the government and against these kinds of charges--the deck is stacked the moment you walk into the room, and I'm not sure that *anyone* has *ever* been completely exonerated after such allegations are leveled in this particular sphere of jurisprudence (if you can call it that.) Crimes can be invented by government lawyers on the spot and then applied retroactively to the defendants even if no such laws existed at the time of the alleged offenses! Pretty much, in these cases, the government does as it wishes and answers to no one. And that is why it is impossible to beat them. They cheat, essentially.

This is certainly not to say that I think the entire government operates in this fashion. Of course not--it would have collapsed long ago had that been the case. But these kinds of trumped-up charges that get thrown at CEO's and companies just because they don't "play the Washington circuit" and contribute enough to various campaign war chests tends to make me fairly irate.

Yesterday it was Microsoft--today it's Google--tomorrow it will be Apple. It's coming, there is no doubt about it. The best thing that Apple could start doing today is to start playing the political circuits with plentiful cash to go around to keep "everybody" happy, warm, tipsy, and well fed. Sad part is that where greed is concerned, and some people's greed is like a bottomless pit inexhaustible in its hunger, even if Apple does all of that and follows Intel's lead by rote--it still may not do much good at all in the end. We have some extremely immature and childish personalities seated in Congress today, and when you mix that sort of childishness with that amount of power, both political and legal, what you get is a very nasty brew, indeed.

Buck up Google, because the winds and the rain are preparing to beat upon your house and whether it will ultimately stand is anyone's guess at the moment.

Oddly enough, those laws (and many others) have been routinely flaunted over the last few years by any number of multinational, US-based corporations with plenty of "speech" to throw around, to the very obvious detriment of most, if not all, Americans and their free markets, and the FTC has thus fair failed to hire special prosecutors to investigate any of them.

Ignoring the broad, shallow generalizations and taking what you said at face value, unequal application of the law does not mean [your favorite pet company] should also be exempt from the law.

enderandrew wrote:

I don't think their is any evidence of illegal behavior that has been reported on, but the FTC is going after them regardless. Again, why?

Man, I must have missed that point when agencies started sharing every little detail of their criminal investigations. I'm *so* out of the loop.

Stories like these surely do not increase my fear of Google (Heh! That's a pretty amusing thought!...) But otoh, stories like these do much to increase my fear of a government run amok with cronyism, vindictiveness, malice and highly prejudicial conduct. IE, corruption.

Unfortunately, this is one of the times where I am forced to agree with your attribution of malice to an organization's actions.